chownah
I read your extract of Walsh et. al. 2017http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch8.pdf
......
......
When they conclude that "2016 warm ocean anomalies cannot be explained without anthropogenic climate warming" it means "the simulations under our assumptions won't simulate the current climate without it". That leads to the obvious questions.

I have not studied climate science....I have no scientific interest in it...I am a farmer so weather is a more pressing concern.

I don't rely on individual studies in forming my views on climate change. To me it is evident that the climate is changing by just looking at nature and the consistent reports of evidence demonstrating to one degree of accuracy or another and to various confidence intervals that the earth is warming.....for me it is the preponderance of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change that is convincing.....and as time goes on the continued changes of natural cycles and the continuing research which shows no sign of changing directions has made in my view the case for anth climate ever more undeniable.

So, part of what I do here is to act as a skeptic and point out anything which catches my eye and which doesn't seem quite right. I also will sometimes bring an article which I think that people will be able to relate to as understandable evidence.

Another aspect of my involvement is that I don't really care if through some kind of cosmic humor it should turn out that climate change is a hoax because virtually all of the actions being taken to address the issue are beneficial to society and individuals even disregarding climate change.....so....supporting climate change if nothing else will increase the speed that new energy technology is implemented.
chownah

Saying I'm too preoccupied with the inner workings of the science community is like saying that a scientist is preoccupied with the scientific method or a Buddhist is preoccupied with studying the buddha dharma or translating Pali, Chinese or Tibetan.

Not quite - too preoccupied, i.e. too much attention, like the monk quibbling over one word rather than putting the time into genuine practice.
But I will accept that you're not really like that in the light of ...

...My prediction is that more reports like this will excite the already convinced, not do much for the majority in the middle who aren't willing or convinced to go on a war footing, and nothing for everyone else. I think the key to social progress is the majority in the middle and the unconvinced -- the moderate warmers and the luke-warmers. You don't have to convince everybody -- just find common reasons to work together on solutions. You might be surprised by how many so-called "deniers" have solar panels, are concerned with energy efficiency, talk of our responsibility as stewards of the earth as a Christian or secular responsibility and prefer cleaner electrical energy sources than coal. Research and experience shows that there are much more effective ways of reaching them which have little to do with attribution studies. For example: https://climateoutreach.org/

I agree with you on all of this, but one of the things which I think is attracting the attention of the undecided middle is extreme weather. (See my next post.) Highlighting its sources in climate change therefore offers a good opportunity to shift opinion on climate change quite quickly.

Cyclones, bushfires and heatwaves are typically Australian natural disasters, but in 2017 devastating fires, record heat, hurricanes and typhoons — what we call cyclones — struck around the world.

Here are a few of the events that caught our attention this year.

Cyclone Debbie

It was the cyclone that just kept on going.

Debbie made landfall near Airlie Beach as a category 4 system on March 28 with wind gusts of 263 kilometres per hour recorded at Hamilton Island, the highest gust ever recorded in the Queensland digital climate archive, and its initial impact was ferocious. ...

Pakistan record heat

In May, there was a major heat event which affected most of the Persian Gulf but seemed to go largely under the radar in western media.

The town of Turbat in south-west Pakistan recorded 54.0 degrees Celsius, equal to the maximum temperature recorded in Mitrabah, Kuwait in July last year. ...

US hurricane cluster

Harvey, Irma, Jose, Katia, and Maria — the US was battered by hurricane after hurricane this year.

Of these, Harvey, Irma and Maria did the most damage. ...

East Africa drought

UN data suggests there are more than 15.2 million people who remain severely food insecure on the horn of Africa as of December 8.

Some parts received decent rain in October and November this year but it will take time for those benefits to trickle through, especially when coupled with other conflicts.

For other areas, this will be the fourth consecutive year the rains have failed. ...

Portugal fires

Portugal suffered two major rounds of deadly fires this year, one in June and one in October.

The July fires led to 62 deaths and the October fires killed more than 40 people.

The July fires took place during a heatwave when there were several days in a row above 40C.

The October fires were whipped up by the passing of Hurricane Ophelia.

The unusually placed storm was in the area thanks its formation much further north east than a normal Atlantic hurricane, ...

South Asia floods

It was reported that more than 1,300 people died in the flooding that hit India, Bangladesh and Nepal in mid-August this year.

UNICEF estimated that 31 million had been affected by the floods associated with a strong monsoon.

At the height of the storms, Bangladesh received as much rain in two hours as it would in a week of a typical monsoon. ...

California fires

These fires were not just significant because Ellen DeGeneres and Paris Hilton's homes were evacuated, the fires in early October led to tens of thousands of people being forced to flee their homes and more than 40 people lost their lives. ...

Philippines typhoon and landslides

On December 16, Tropical Storm Kia-tak — known locally as Urduja — made landfall in the Philippines.

Severe flooding and landsides were triggered when two months of rain fell in 48 hours.

Less than two weeks later, Typhoon Tembin — also known as Typhoon Vinta — hit the Philippines.

So far, more than 250 people are confirmed dead as a result of the storm. ...

There is no debate about Climate change. There are those who understand what is happening, and those who just decide not to believe in facts.
Just as if someone said: Hey Alan, let's debate evolution! No, let's not.
I would not stand up next to that person--the person who does not believe in evolution--and enter a debate. Why? Because doing so makes them look like my equal, which they are not.

"Debating" things which we know to be true is a pointless waste of time, I say.

There is no debate about Climate change. There are those who understand what is happening, and those who just decide not to believe in facts.
Just as if someone said: Hey Alan, let's debate evolution! No, let's not.
I would not stand up next to that person--the person who does not believe in evolution--and enter a debate. Why? Because doing so makes them look like my equal, which they are not.

"Debating" things which we know to be true is a pointless waste of time, I say.

Kim, There is a big difference between a extreme weather event, a record event, and a climate trend/change. I accept the assessment from the most recent IPCC assessment report (AR5, WG1) that since 1950 changes (trend) in warmer temps is assessed to be likely to very likely; for heavy rainfall events a trend is likely.

I've extracted the sections from the report you quoted highlighting all the indications of trends or records. The information relevant to increasing extreme weather is not impressive.

Cyclones, bushfires and heatwaves are typically Australian natural disasters, but in 2017 devastating fires, record heat, hurricanes and typhoons — what we call cyclones — struck around the world.
Here are a few of the events that caught our attention this year. ...

Cyclone Debbie
It was the cyclone that just kept on going.
Debbie made landfall near Airlie Beach as a category 4 system on March 28 with wind gusts of 263 kilometres per hour recorded at Hamilton Island, the highest gust ever recorded in the Queensland digital climate archive, and its initial impact was ferocious. ...Pakistan record heat
In May, there was a major heat event which affected most of the Persian Gulf but seemed to go largely under the radar in western media.
The town of Turbat in south-west Pakistan recorded 54.0 degrees Celsius, equal to the maximum temperature recorded in Mitrabah, Kuwait in July last year. ...California fires
These fires were not just significant because Ellen DeGeneres and Paris Hilton's homes were evacuated, the fires in early October led to tens of thousands of people being forced to flee their homes and more than 40 people lost their lives. ...

There has been a revolution in climate monitoring through instruments in my lifetime. This applies even for the basic, ground based station readings for temp, wind speed and barometric pressure. Older instruments were not capable of recording extreme gusts, in a number of cases the instrument was significantly damaged.

It's a mistake to assume a record means a trend or change. Why? Assume a 100 year weather record under conditions of no climate change; assuming random variation the chance of setting a record in any decade is about %10.

As the old saying goes, once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.
And the enemy here is climate change.

Ok climate hawk. On the scale of the old saying I put it to you that the data you presented ranks as bad luck or perhaps coincidence.
------------IPCC AR5 WG1 -Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makershttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
See B.1 Atmosphere

IPCC Assessment Report 5 (2013) Summary for Policy Makers wrote:
Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for
details). It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights
has increased on the global scale6. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe,
Asia and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than
where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and
Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium. {2.6}

So where, in the summary above, are mentions of all the other changes or trends in extreme weather? There were good reasons other extreme weather changes were not included in the summary. For instance see Table SPM.1 which reports Low confidence that globally changes have occurred in the extreme weather types reported. <revised>

Dig into the report to find that the record does not show a clear upward trend in other types of extreme weather events. In some cases the record suggests that the trend might be in the other direction.AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS)https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
See TS.2.7 Changes in Extremes, TS.2.7.1 Atmosphere

So why, one might well ask, why have I heard so much about extreme weather? To use a much abused phrase ... "climate science denial" is suggested.

Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain
that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic
have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see
TFE.9)

and

With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century
occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central
Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There
is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North
America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical
floods in magnitude and/or frequency. {5.5.5}

and

It is likely that the magnitude of extreme high sea level events has
increased since 1970 (see TFE.9, Table 1).

Quote the entire paragraph at least to reduce the risk of 'cherry-picking'!

The SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) is a "summary written by climate diplomats for climate diplomats" in the words of one scientist who was an observer in the closed meeting for the last report.
The technical summary below was written by scientists.
Notes:

Tropical cyclone -- also known as a hurricanein the northern hemisphere.

The tropical cyclone designation is a broad term for various strength systems in the Atlantic basin. In other weather research the tropical cyclone designation is often subdivided into Tropical Storm, Hurricane and Intense (or Major) Hurricane.

There is confusing switch in terms -- tropical cyclone, storms, storminess. Are they talking about the same thing? Yes, probably. You have to read the main body of the reports (TFE.9 for instance) to find out. They won't win any awards for technical writing!

Technical Summary of Changes in Extremes wrote:Technical Summary TS.2.7 Changes in Extremes
TS.2.7.1 AtmosphereConfidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone [hurricane] activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see TFE.9).
There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms. {2.6.2–2.6.4}
-- AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf

Translation:

If you choose a start date of 1970 you get a trend. If you include the entire history of somewhat reliable weather records then we are unsure/have low assessed confidence. Low confidence is one step above very low where very low is the lowest level of confidence in the 5 part scale used in this report (see below).

Note there is not a "no confidence" or "the evidence points the other way" on the scale of terms the report uses. So logically very low confidence includes "zero or virtually zero confidence" or even "we have some degree of confidence that the evidence points in the other direction".

In the modern era, especially the satellite era (sometime after 1970 if I recall recorrectly) we have much better digital instruments, aircraft based hurricane chasers with drop radiosondes, and of course satellite based systems which see the entire global. For older records what happened at sea was quite uncertain, the best records come from landfalling hurricanes. A apples-to-apples comparison forces us to focus on landfalling hurricanes. Figure 2.34 shows a graph of that record.

Most of us have been told otherwise by people who ought to know -- I would say ought to know better. What to make of this? The situation makes more sense in light of a clear eyed, non-naive understanding of the current state of science in general and for politically contested science in particular. See for instance the assessment of this science and public policy analyst: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... remes.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/ima ... ig2-34.jpgFigure 2.34 | Normalized 5-year running means of the number of:
(a) adjusted land falling eastern Australian tropical cyclones (adapted from Callaghan and Power (2011)
and updated to include 2010//2011 season) and
(b) unadjusted land falling U.S. hurricanes (adapted from Vecchi and Knutson (2011) and
(c) land-falling typhoons in China (adapted from CMA, 2011).
Vertical axis ticks represent one standard deviation, with all series normalized to unit standard deviation after a 5-year running mean was applied.

Do you see the trend? Don't strain your eyes, I don't either.

Those who don't read their history are condemned to fool themselves
Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma were in 2005. Between 2005 and 2017 there were no category 3 or higher hurricane landfalls in the US. For the US 2017 was the end of was the longest 'major hurricane drought', the longest longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall for the US since at least 1900. 2017 was a big year -- by the usual measures it ranked among the worst 5 hurricane years in the US record but not in the top 2. Even when the US hurricanes of 2017 are included overall the last 10 years have been quiet after a unprecedented peace. A return back to normal (a regression to the historical mean) will be a increase.

There are some beliefs that-everyone-just-knows-are-true. The narrative about extreme weather is one of them.
-----------------A Personal Conclusion
This doesn't mean that climate isn't changing. It is.
Among other policy changes I support a carbon tax. That stays the same.
I'd also like to see a 'tax' on low integrity.
Changes in temperature and pattern of rainfall. Yes.
More rain overall? No. In most cases not more rain overall. Extreme precipitation means "when it rains it pours", lots of rain in a short time period (in one hour for instance) but not more rain overall.
Changes in other extreme weather? No globally. In some cases, if the changes are real they are small relative to the measurement uncertainty so we don't have high confidence in the measurement. But that is a global average, your regional "mileage" may vary.

I support the ideas of the Eight-fold Noble path to this issue. That means no sloppy speech.
Buddhists may owe their friends and sangas an update to correct previous mis-statements.

Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Quote the entire paragraph at least to reduce the risk of 'cherry-picking'!

Please don't try to tell me how to edit my posts. I included the caveat. My post was directed at a more typical reader so I just presented what I thought was some useful information about the certainty of some extreme climate events using the reference which you brought. IN a previous post you asked "So where are all the changes or trends in extreme weather?" so I went to your link and found some extreme events. Seems that you are just pounding away at one of them...and have ignored the others.

SUMMARY: You can find a trend or change if you pick the right time period and region of the world. But globally as in "global climate change" or "global warming"? No.

Yes, if you pick the right period and region you can find a trend.....thank you for admitting that the trends are real.
Yes, you can pick a time period and region and move any changes outside the confidence interval.
You can also mess with the idea of what constitutes an event and change the results either way.
You can make the absurd statement that a trend must manifest everywhere in the world for it to be relevant to the topic of "global climate change".
You can also note that this stuff we have been reporting (I think) is from 2013....which means the science that went into it is even older......we should all keep tuned while things become clearer through ongoing data collection and analysis.
chownah

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/ima ... ig2-34.jpgFigure 2.34 | Normalized 5-year running means of the number of:
(a) adjusted land falling eastern Australian tropical cyclones (adapted from Callaghan and Power (2011)
and updated to include 2010//2011 season) and
(b) unadjusted land falling U.S. hurricanes (adapted from Vecchi and Knutson (2011) and
(c) land-falling typhoons in China (adapted from CMA, 2011).
Vertical axis ticks represent one standard deviation, with all series normalized to unit standard deviation after a 5-year running mean was applied.

Do you see the trend? Don't strain your eyes, I don't either.

I couldn't believe you posted this. You are suggesting to people that they can look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there.....shame on you.....this is like trump saying that the cold weather in the usa's northlands clearly shows that global warming is a scam.......I can't believe you posted this.
chownah

I couldn't believe you posted this. You are suggesting to people that they can look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there.....shame on you.....this is like trump saying that the cold weather in the usa's northlands clearly shows that global warming is a scam.......I can't believe you posted this.
chownah

No sir, I believe your indignation, to call it that, is inappropriate and unwarranted there. In good faith I say that I presented science in a responsible, informed and conventional manner. I believe you have failed to recognize a honest presentation of real science and decent science writing.
I have done what peer reviewed papers routinely do. Further I put it to you it's what the IPCC report authors indended the reader to do with this graph. If the authors of that chapter of the IPCC report didn't intend readers to "eye ball" or "visually detect" trends in the data then explain your theory as to why it was included in the report. Failing that I think you owe us a retraction.

Of course there are more rigorous methods of analysis and good papers usually present data with a graph and with statistical results. But it is possible to "eye ball" a graph to help understand the general shape of the data. This is an accepted mode of presenting results. It's not the exclusive way but acceptable for initial or summary presentations. There is a entire specialty that focuses on the effective visual presentation of data. Graphs like these are routinely presented in scientific papers because it is an effective visual presentation of data and can be done in a way that is not misleading.

To be blunt, in this case I believe you have failed to recognize a honest presentation of real science and decent science writing when you saw it.

I don't follow or understand the analogy to Trumps tweet -- which seemed silly to me too.
chownad I believe your analysis is in error. If there is something I missed or there is a more reasoned argument to be made please do so.
But at this point I say that If there is any shame to be had here it is not on me.

- Climate change & science tends to invoke strong emotions. At this point I'm going to take a 24 hiatus -

Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

chownad I believe your analysis is in error. If there is something I missed or there is a more reasoned argument to be made please do so.

I'm not offering an analysis. You are missing how you are leading untrained lay people to believe that they can look at a graph and determine visually if there is a statistically significant trend depicted.....leading them to think in the manner of "I can't see it so it must not be there".....which is folly.......just like trump saying something like "global warming is a hoax....just feel how cold it is this winter. We don't need more people teaching the lay communities to think that their casual visual observations and gut feeling is a better way to understand the environment than is scientific research. Most lay people couldn't recognize a trend if it climbed up their leg and bit them someplace. Most lay people don't understand what it means to be "statistically significant". I think you should get out more often and rub elbows with some regular folks.
chownah

Hi, chownah,
If you look at this blog post by Pielke Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/20 ... remes.html and this profile of him on DeSmogBlog https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr you will see someone with a lot in common with Leeuwenhoek2. (Also a lot in common with a less famous scientist in my own community, which may be why I saw the similarity.)
All three of them can look like denialists to everyone except themselves and real denialists. The mind-set is ...odd. Science is stripped of its human context and then idealised and venerated, instead of being regarded as a way of understanding the natural world and used as a tool.

In terms of nailed-down, peer-reviewed, duly authorised Science, Leeuwenhoek2's statements are reasonably well justified. In terms of useful science, though, I'm with you because, as you say, s/he is out of date. And in climate science, being a few years behind the times means being wrong.
That, really, was the point of my post quoting Nature's editiorial - that now (2017 going into 2018) scientists are at last able and willing to say something they have been suspecting (but were unable to show) for some years, i.e. that climate change is certainly driving extreme weather events.
Hansen showed it as a statistical trend in 2012 with his 'climate dice' paper https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/ but tightening the attribution has been difficult.

Leeuwenhoek2,
Apologies for talking about you instead of to you, but it seemed the easiest way to make my perception clear. If you think I've been unfair, feel free to correct me.